JARNAIL SINGH Vs. DEVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this judgment two Regular Second Appeals Nos. 2058 and 2059 of 1983 are being disposed of as they have arisen out of the same suit.

(2.) Suit filed by Nand Lal and others for declaration that they were owners in possession of land measuring 14 Kanals 6 Marlas situated in village Sandhra on the basis of will dated March 13, 1971 executed by Jiwan Ram with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants Tirath Ram and others from interfering in their possession was decreed by the trial Court on November 11, 1980 with regard to the declaration that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit land. With respect to the remaining relief, the suit was dismissed. Appeal was filed before the Lower Appellate Court by Tirath Ram and other defendants. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, Jarnail Singh moved an application for being impleaded as defendant in the suit, as he had in the meanwhile purchased the suit land from the defendants. He was allowed to prosecute the appeal on the understanding that he will not ask for remand of the case as mentioned in the judgment of the Additional District Judge. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on June, (sic) 1984. Hence, the two appeals aforesaid, one filed by Jarnail Singh, the added defendant and other by Tirath Ram and others, the original defendants, in the suit.

(3.) It has been argued on behalf of Jarnail Singh, appellant, that on his becoming a party in the appeal, the case should been remanded to the trial Court allowing him an opportunity to file written statement contesting the suit. This contention cannot be accepted. Although there is no specific order passed by the Lower Appellate Court while allowing his application to become a party with respect to non-filing of written statement. Yet, in the impugned judgment, it has been specifically mentioned that he was impleaded as a party on the clear understanding that he would not claim remand of the case and that he will not file any written statement. As a matter of fact Jarnail Singh having purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit was to be bound by the final decree to be passed therein such a transferee is not entitled to enforce his transfer which is subject to the decision of the suit in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. This provision provides that during pendency of any suit in a Court, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceedings so as to affect the right of any other party thereto under the decree or order which may be made therein. Only exception is if such transfer is made under the authority of the Court and on such terms as may be imposed. Jarnail Singh being a transferee from the defendants during the pendency of the suit itself cannot claim as is urged to be bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of pendency of the suit. The law prohibits such transfers during pendency of the suit. The provisions of Sections 4 and 53-A of Transfer of Property Act would not apply to such a case. Pritam Singh and others, 1975 AIR(Punjab) and Haryana 205 observed on the scope of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act as under :-